That wouldn't convey any information. Some people have good marketing/self-promotion skills, others don't. Every result will be different for completely diffierent reasons and the average will mean nothing.

Poll's current form doesnt show two of my big 4 seller which is Alamy and my site.

I haven't had alamy in the poll because they aren't technically a microstock site, even though I know lots of us use them. Perhaps they should be added...

wut

If what the poll does is simple avereges then the results will be heavly skewed (as can be seen already) towards IS since all exclusives will give some positive (and motsly high number) for IS and a 0 for the rest.

Lol, that explains the poll results perfectly (if many ppl think and more importantly act like that)

Actually the way it is set up now is very useful. If I understand it correctly, the top earner in $$ terms, on average, is SS with IS, on average, bringing in 76% of SS across the voting population. Excluding Exclusives.

That wouldn't convey any information. Some people have good marketing/self-promotion skills, others don't. Every result will be different for completely diffierent reasons and the average will mean nothing.

I think it would be interesting to see how many people are making it work.. if the 'direct sales' start to creep up the poll it means a lot of people are doing something right...

Dumb question: You added a lot more earnings categories to make the results more granular. Why don't you just use a simple input field where everyone who votes enters the real dollar amount?The data is not public anyway, and if somebody is willing to vote that he is earning between $2000 and $2500, than why wouldn't he be willing to type in $2344 exactly?That would take away any skewed results due to the different "earning categories" completely...

ayzek

For instance, when SS is 100, how do you reach the result? Does it mean that the average income for each voter is $100? Or does it mean that on a scale of 100, SS reaches the top?

I haven't totally settled on how best to display the results yet (yesterday I was focusing on reworking the poll itself).. but this is how it works now.

I have chosen not to display the actual average of the votes because, simply, it means nothing. If the avg. for site X was $1000 that doesn't mean the average microstocker is making $1000 or that you can expect to make $1000 on that site, it just means that for everyone who happened to vote the avg was $1000. What that CAN tell is though, is something when compared to site Y who has an average of $500 ... site Y is earning half of what site X is for people (on average) and that is interesting. Therefore, the top site is currently set at 100 and everything is organized below as a ratio of that. So if Dreamstime is at 50 and Shutterstock is at 100 then people are (on average) earning half as much on Dreamstime as they are on Shutterstock. The sites at 1 ... well, the earnings are pretty small to nill.

Why dont we use same % system like monthly earnings charts.Sites rates in total earning maybe more clear than this one.

Actually the way it is set up now is very useful. If I understand it correctly, the top earner in $$ terms, on average, is SS with IS, on average, bringing in 76% of SS across the voting population. Excluding Exclusives.

Useful indeed.

Yeah, you are correct.

100 is the max 'rating', which yes is sort of a percentage. The top performing site will always have 100. If the average for shutterstock is $500 and the average for Fotolia is $250 then Shutterstock sill have a rating of 100 and Fotolia will have a rating of 50

Dumb question: You added a lot more earnings categories to make the results more granular. Why don't you just use a simple input field where everyone who votes enters the real dollar amount?The data is not public anyway, and if somebody is willing to vote that he is earning between $2000 and $2500, than why wouldn't he be willing to type in $2344 exactly?That would take away any skewed results due to the different "earning categories" completely...

I have thought quite a bit about the best input method. I wanted something that was quick to fill in and hard(er) to spam. If I left an open box, we'd have people who enter 1,000,000 for earnings on a site just to be dumb. It isn't as fun to enter $2500 although I'm sure some people do that too. On the average though I think it probably all works out. I could just delete bogus votes like that but where to draw the line then?

I thought of trying to get a slider to work, but ended up with the radio buttons which are (hopefully) fairly quick to click and perhaps quicker than typing in actual numbers.

If what the poll does is simple avereges then the results will be heavly skewed (as can be seen already) towards IS since all exclusives will give some positive (and motsly high number) for IS and a 0 for the rest.

They should give 'no vote' for the rest - which isn't included in the results. A 0 vote is different than a 'no vote' vote. and yeah, i'm working at sorting out the exclusives.

You might want to add higher numbers than $2.5k... for the exclusive option at least.

Logged

lisafx

« Reply #64 on: February 17, 2012, 17:54 »

0

I just took the updated poll. Very nice as is, IMO.

I am glad that exclusive votes will still be included, but separated. This way they don't skew the results, but at the same time it will be possible to see where exclusive incomes are on the scale. I would hate to see exclusives excluded altogether, as their info is relevant to the overall picture.

I am glad that exclusive votes will still be included, but separated. This way they don't skew the results, but at the same time it will be possible to see where exclusive incomes are on the scale. I would hate to see exclusives excluded altogether, as their info is relevant to the overall picture.

Your constant reference to exclusivity in this forum makes us all suspicious. It's just a matter of time before you turn.

It's very interesting how the relative positions of FT and 123 have changed as a result of the new poll ....

Yeah, i think that pretty clearly shows what we know about FT. They have images (and photographers) that sell very very well, and then they have images that they don't promote that don't sell at all. It is either all or nothing on Fotolia. So now that there is higher earnings brackets, the people who are earnings lots are making a bigger difference in the results.

If what the poll does is simple avereges then the results will be heavly skewed (as can be seen already) towards IS since all exclusives will give some positive (and motsly high number) for IS and a 0 for the rest.

They should give 'no vote' for the rest - which isn't included in the results. A 0 vote is different than a 'no vote' vote. and yeah, i'm working at sorting out the exclusives.

You might want to add higher numbers than $2.5k... for the exclusive option at least.

Yeah, perhaps I should add one more level for everyone. I realize there are a lot of people making more than $2500/month on the top sites. The reason I have it currently limited to $2500 is so that the spammers will have less effect.

If what the poll does is simple avereges then the results will be heavly skewed (as can be seen already) towards IS since all exclusives will give some positive (and motsly high number) for IS and a 0 for the rest.

They should give 'no vote' for the rest - which isn't included in the results. A 0 vote is different than a 'no vote' vote. and yeah, i'm working at sorting out the exclusives.

You might want to add higher numbers than $2.5k... for the exclusive option at least.

Yeah, perhaps I should add one more level for everyone. I realize there are a lot of people making more than $2500/month on the top sites. The reason I have it currently limited to $2500 is so that the spammers will have less effect.

Could you hide the poll page from users with less than a certain amount of posts (say 50)?

lagereek

It's very interesting how the relative positions of FT and 123 have changed as a result of the new poll ....

Yeah, i think that pretty clearly shows what we know about FT. They have images (and photographers) that sell very very well, and then they have images that they don't promote that don't sell at all. It is either all or nothing on Fotolia. So now that there is higher earnings brackets, the people who are earnings lots are making a bigger difference in the results.

I am not surprised at all, FT, is selling very, very well and really, 123, was only up there because some left FT and plenty got fooled and joined 123.